John Kerry continues his climate fraud promotion

The agreement must also help countries adapt to a changing environment. The most dire impacts of climate change will likely be felt by those who did the least to bring it about and who are least capable of managing its impacts. Just last week, a study in Science warned that climate change may exacerbate “mega-droughts” in West Africa. We must agree on a global mechanism to support poor countries as they struggle to relocate their citizens and reorient their agriculture patterns and resource use in response to a warming planet.
...
This country invented solar and wind technology, but German and Japanese companies developed it. Today, of the top thirty companies in the world in solar, wind and advanced batteries, only 6 are based in the US. If we do this right, I truly believe that the next four or five Googles will emerge in the energy sector. I want them to be based right here in America.

We also need to take a risk-based approach to climate change policy. Surveying the existing models, Harvard economist Martin Weitzman found that there is approximately a 5% chance that world temperatures will rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius, or 18 degrees Fahrenheit. I, for one, wouldn’t board a plane if there were a 5% chance it would crash. We certainly can’t afford to take that same risk with our planet.

The reality is that we are running out of time. Earlier this month, a 25 mile wide ice bridge connecting the Wilkins Shelf to the Antarctic land mass shattered, disconnecting a shelf the size of Connecticut from the Antarctic continent.

We are seeing our world change in real time, in ways that ought to trouble all of us and mobilize the world to take quick and decisive action. Frankly, the greatest risk we face is that we will trim our sails and do too little now—and face enormous consequences later as a result of our lack of ambition. If we fail to confront the full scale of the threat, today’s global challenge is poised to become a global catastrophe.

EU Referendum: Feeding frenzy

But, while Darling offered a financial budget, he also delivered what is hailed as the world's first "carbon budget", committing the UK to a revised target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 34 percent of 1990 levels by 2020.

This, of course, is hubris personified as the man won't be around a chancellor after the election in 2010, and there will have been a least two more elections by the time a further ten years have elapsed.

By then, also, the likelihood is that the already apparent cooling trend will be well established and the "climate change" scam will be history, buried in winter snows and power and food shortages.

David Harsanyi : Save the Humans! - Townhall.com

Even fewer will mention the new Rasmussen poll that shows that only 1 in 3 voters now believes global warming is caused by human activity -- the lowest number ever. Forty-four percent of likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while 7 percent blame some other reason.

This shift in public opinion may be a blip, or it may be a trend. But if we're ever to enact energy policy that is both environmentally responsible and economically reasonable, we're going to need a rational discussion. We haven't come close yet.

Climate sceptics ready to storm heaven with earth's geological history | The Australian

THERE'S nothing like healthy academic combat. In the corridors of Adelaide University, two respected professors on opposite sides of the climate change debate are pushing their theories on the subject, sparked by a new book that has sceptics rubbing their hands with glee.

People aren't to blame for climate change, says to Professor Ian Plimer | The Australian

OUTSPOKEN academic geologist Ian Plimer says people are embracing his latest book on the science behind climate change because they are "disenfranchised" and increasingly frustrated with the "selective evidence" being presented about global warming.